Statistics

In September 1999 we wrote to Defra's predecessor, MAFF, and requested detailed information on duck welfare.Their reply simply said: 'The duck industry is dominated by a single company and to supply some of theinformation which you request would result in a breach of confidentiality.' This confidentiality was based on theirown interpretation of the 1947 Statistics and Trade Act (ISBN 011 803 8826). It claimed that as Cherry Valley, atthe time, controlled over 80 per cent of the duck meat market it was therefore eligible to protection under the Act.

However, by 2004, things had clearly changed. We wrote to Ben Bradshaw, the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, and he replied to our following questions (his answers can be read in full in Appendix 1):

a) What feed restrictions are practiced? b) Are cages used for 'elite' stock? c) How widespread is the use of artificial insemination? d) What are the main diseases suffered by intensively-reared ducks? e) What problems have been observed with leg weakness? f) What problems have arisen in slaughtering ducks? g) How widespread are the problems associated with wet litter? h) Why is there a lack of water of sufficient depth to avoid eye problems? i) What number of ducks are slaughtered annually in the UK and how many eggs, ducklings and breeding stock are exported? j) What are the average mortality rates of ducks in intensive production? k) How many ducks are killed in the UK each year using 'Instantaneous Mechanical Destruction'? l) For what reason would the above method be employed?

Whilst we welcome the Government's moves to openness and their willingness to answer our questions, we were shocked by the level of ignorance to even the most basic welfare problems and even, in some cases, clear contradictions with Defra's own findings and publications. In the later chapters we will incorporate Ben Bradshaw's responses into the appropriate section.

Down on the factory farm

A modern intensive duck unit in the UK may contain between nine and 10,000 ducks in an undivided flock (1). Almost constant lighting ensures they have no natural contrast between day and night. Cherry Valley Farms claim that 'best overall results are obtained with continuous lighting' and recommend 23 hours of light out of the 24 - the one hour without lights is solely to accustom birds to occasional darkness so they do not panic in the event of a power cut (2). The near-constant light maximises the opportunity for the overcrowded birds to feed and put on weight.

Defra's Code of Recommendations for ducks merely states that lighting should be set at levels 'which allow [the ducks] to see one another and to be seen clearly' (3). Although it is illegal to keep animals in permanent darkness (14) the wording is so lax that lighting can be extremely dim. Also, whilst Defra's Code of Recommendations suggests that lighting in the sheds should 'follow a 24-hour rhythm and include a sufficient uninterrupted dark period, as a guideline approximately a third of the day', and asks producers to consider 'a twilight period in the dimming of lights in order to avoid disturbance or injury and allow ducks to prepare for darkness' (3), there is no legal incentive for this to happen, so it is unlikely to be implemented by most producers.

As with intensive chicken and turkey industries, fast weight gain is the aim. Cherry Valley's Super M3 reaches 3.5kgs at 47 days old and boasts increased breast meat (4). Most ducks are now slaughtered at a maximum of 56 days, by which time they have attained their most profitable growth spurt, despite the fact that they can live to 15 years and more (5).

The current increase in breast meat is due to genetic selection: '... the Cherry Valley table duckling of today not only grows 10 per cent more quickly than did its predecessor of a few years ago, but it also contains 25 per cent more breast meat.' (6)

Increased breast meat in broiler chickens and turkeys has resulted in abnormal gait and leg problems and ducks appear to be going the same way. The European Convention confirms that heavier domestic birds, in particular those selected for meat production, may be unable to fly, have difficulty in walking and be subject to leg disorders (7).

Modern duck farms have a throughput of around six cycles a year - six flocks of ducks, each slaughtered at around seven weeks of age and reared in the same building, which is cleaned at the end of each cycle. Therefore one shed or building (unit) capable of holding a flock of 10,000 ducks will produce 60,000 ducks annually.

Ducks out of water - the cruellest deprivation

In 1999 and 2004, Viva! was given 20 day-old ducklings. They were reared to maturity and we observed their behaviour, particularly in relation to water. Ducklings without the protection of their mothers' feather oils cannot swim - they become sodden and risk drowning. Consequently Viva! allowed shallow drinking points only until the ducklings' down was replaced by feathers.

Each time the drinking water was changed the ducklings expressed a marked degree of interest and excitement. Clearly, water was imprinted in their genetic make-up as being of utmost importance. Once the ducklings had grown adult feathers they were allowed on to ponds where they spent most of their time.

In 2002, Viva! was given two seven-week old ducks. When placed in water for the first time they were ecstatic! Again, from that point on they chose to spend four-fifths of their time in water. Water was fundamental to their lives - they would even dash to anyone carrying a bowl of it, jump in it, splash, play and eat their food from it.

These observations have been backed up by scientific research by Dr Johnathon Cooper of De Monfort University, funded by UFAW (Universities Federation of Animal Welfare), in which he investigated the aquatic needs of the duck. Techniques developed for the assessment of behavioural priorities in animals were used to 'ask' the ducks what was important to them. Through a series of tests, where obstacles such as distance and vertical barriers of differing heights were used, it was found that ducklings place a higher value on open water compared to nipple drinkers (13).

Denial of water limits preening (see part four) and 'comfort behaviour' and this opens the way to abnormal or stereotyped behaviour.

Despite Viva! and UFAW's research, and Clare Druce of FAWN stating in a letter to Defra that the importance of water to ducks was 'blindingly obvious', Defra have announced a three year study 'to ascertain the importance of bathing water to ducks by quantifying their motivation to gain access to water in which they can bathe' (15).

Water supply - varying standards

Water is limited solely to drinking points in all intensive duck production.

Ducks are not allowed access to water (apart from drinkers) or usually even to immerse their heads. Ducks are aquatic birds and need water. Naturally mother ducks oil the down feathers of young ducklings to protect them from water so that they can swim from day one. Ducks must have water to preen properly (see part four). At the very least, ducks should be able to immerse their heads. Defra states that if they cannot do this, 'their eyes seem to get scaly and crusty and, in extreme cases, blindness may follow' (12). Despite Defra clearly stating this in their own publication, when Ben Bradshaw, the Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, replied to our question on this very subject he declared that: "We are not aware that current methods of providing water result in eye problems." (16) This seeming level of ignorance to Defra's own research is surprising. In 2004, Viva!, as part of its response to Defra's Draft Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Ducks, submitted photographic and video evidence to illustrate the associated problems of lack of access to water for ducks that were taken during our investigation into Norfolk-based duck producer Manor Farm Ducklings in April 2004. They are typical of the conditions we find during our investigations of the intensive duck farming industry, and included an example of 'crusty eye', where a duck had become blinded when both of its eyes became 'welded' shut with dirt and grime. This is a direct result of the duck not being able to preen due to the use of nipple drinkers.

There is no UK legislation regarding the number or depth of water points. Defra's code suggests that: 'Ducks should be provided with water facilities sufficient in number and designed to allow water to cover the head and be taken up by the beak so that the duck can shake water over the body without difficulty. Where possible facilities should be provided to allow ducks to dip their heads underwater.' (8) Defra codes are not mandatory and most bell-type drinkers currently in use do not allow immersion of the ducks' heads. Increasingly, UK producers are using nipple drinkers - which were designed for chickens - to provide drinking water for ducks (see part three). Also, we have evidence of 'crusty eye' and associated problems among ducks even on intensive units where water troughs are used, where we have found the water to be filthy, shallow and stagnant.

Defra admits in the new draft code that '... access to an outside run and water for bathing can assist ducks in meeting their biological requirements'. The draft code continues: 'It is accepted that in practice this cannot be provided for most birds and that there are risks to duck health, hygiene and safety if they are given unlimited access to open water.' So, whilst Defra recognises the spirit of the recommendations from the Council of Europe (part three), this sentence is clearly inviting intensive duck producers to ignore this sound advice - hence even removing the pretence that Defra ever expects this recommendation to be taken up by any producer. Viva! has never denied that if you put thousands of ducks in a small space of open water you will quickly face problems! It is the intensity of the farming that is at fault here - though of course, it is the ducks who pay the price.

Stocking densities

In Defra's current Draft Code of Recommendations it has suggested that stocking densities should not exceed 22kg/sqm for 'fattening' ducks. The existing Defra code requires a maximum of 28kg/sqm stocking density for housed ducks. This is a slight improvement, but it clearly does not go nearly far enough as it means that each duck will still only have access to a space not much larger than an A3 sheet of paper. Even this slight decrease in stocking density could still contravene Schedule 1, paragraph 10 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000 No.1870), which states that - 'Where animals are continuously or regularly confined, they shall be given the space appropriate to their physiological and ethological needs.'

The previous code published by Defra's predecessor MAFF recommended maximum stocking rates for ducklings according to their age. It also recommended different stocking rates for breeding ducks. However, the updated code makes no reference to the age of the ducks or, indeed, the difference between ducklings and breeding ducks. Despite suggesting that the ducks have space enough to perform 'normal behaviour', such as the ability to 'turn round without difficulty' and 'flap and stretch the wings', the code is so ambiguous that it leaves it almost entirely up to the producer to decide what levels they stock ducks at. In fact, the code suggests that stocking densities are only reduced if disease or environmental problems arise - inevitably after the suffering of countless birds.

As ever, these codes are not applicable by law, so this will inevitably lead to overstocking on an even greater scale.

Sadly, the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme approves factory farming. Its standards for ducks states: 'The maximum stocking density must be calculated on the weight of the birds/sqm of available floor space. This must never exceed 17kg/sqm. (10)

The standards for the Soil Association's organically-reared ducks far exceed Defra's standards, the RSPCA's and the industry norm. They demand that birds have access to a stream, pond or lake whenever weather conditions permit. The water must be well maintained and managed to prevent stagnation and risk of disease and the build-up of decaying vegetation and pollution (11).

References (part two)

1. Planning application (approved) from C.S.Buchanan Ltd., Green Label Poultry. Application no. C99/0433
2. Cherry Valley, Super M2 Commercial Growing Manual
3. Defra, Codes of recommendations for the welfare of livestock: Ducks. Consultation document. 2004
4. Cherry Valley Super M3 information
5. RSPB. ‘Phone conversation with FAWN, October 1999
6. Cherry Valley promotional leaflet, date unknown
7. European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes, Domestic Ducks, Article 3, June 1999
8. As 3
9. Ibid
10. Freedom Food Standards for Ducks, 1999, FW13
11. Soil Association, Standards for Organic Food and Farming, Revision 14, 2002 / 2003
12. Ducks and Geese. MAFF. HMSO. 1986
13. A duck out of water … , Vet Nurse Times, March 1999
14. Schedule 1, parargraphs 14-16 of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (S.I.2000 No. 1870)
15. Letter to Viva! from Alison Maydom, On Farm Animal Welfare, Defra, 7 June 2004
16. Letter to Viva! from Ben Bradshaw MP, Minister for Nature Conservation and Fisheries, 26 July 2004
17. Defra Slaughter Statistics, 2003